Terlipressin: Vasopressin Analog and Novel Drug for Septic Shock
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review and assess available literature on chemistry, pharmacology, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, clinical studies, adverse events, drug interactions, and dosing and administration of terlipressin in septic shock. DATA SOURCES: A literature search of MEDLINE (1966-September 2006), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-September 2006), and Cochrane database (third quarter 2006) was conducted, using key terms of terlipressin, lypressin, triglycyl-lysine vasopressin, hemodynamic support, septic shock, vasopressor, and V1 receptor agonist. Bibliographies of relevant articles were reviewed for additional references. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Available English-language literature, including abstracts, animal studies, preclinical studies, clinical trials, and review articles, were examined. DATA SYNTHESIS: Because of potentially favorable pharmacokinetics versus vasopressin and limited availability of vasopressin in some countries, the effects of terlipressin, a vasopressin analog, have been studied recently for the treatment of septic shock. When administered as a 1-2 mg intravenous dose in patients with septic shock, terlipressin increases mean arterial pressure, urine output, systemic vascular resistance index, pulmonary vascular resistance index, and left and right ventricular stroke work index while decreasing heart rate, cardiac output, lactate, and oxygen delivery and consumption index. It is unclear whether lower doses of terlipressin would produce a similar vasopressor response with fewer cardiopulmonary effects and whether the effects of the drug on oxygen transport indices are detrimental. CONCLUSIONS: Terlipressin is a promising investigational medication for treatment of septic shock. Small trials have shown terlipressin to have favorable effects on hemodynamics in patients with septic shock refractory to conventional vasopressor treatment. It should be used with extreme caution in patients with underlying cardiac or pulmonary dysfunction. Further studies are needed to verify safety, efficacy, and dosing of terlipressin in patients with septic shock, and its use cannot be recommended in lieu of vasopressin at this time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".